3 ms·

Some of the more dynamic content from the NYT is coming the closest to what I would want to pay a subscription for, but still far from my threshold to pay. Stat

Some of the more dynamic content from the NYT is coming the closest to what I would want to pay a subscription for, but still far from my threshold to pay. Static word content that we once paid handsomely for (in terms of ad space and subscription fees) is regurgitated at far lower cost everywhere now. But I've yet to see widespread adoption of content with active models to work with, even download and run for yourself, for example. Connected to databases holding the raw data that the story is about. With side-commentary, Torah-like (the Torah has a tradition of recording significant interpretations and amplifications made by past rabbis), possibly by multiple competing editors, summarizing swathes of comments into concise, cogent chunks that add to/update the original piece. Organized not just by time, but through/over time: so not presented only as a "this is what happened this hour/day/week" narrative, but in a Wikipedia-related fashion describing "this event that happened is placed in this context in our overall knowledge".

matt4077 10y ago
Well they're doing quite a lot in data-journalism. The Upshot (NYT) and 538 have git organizations. Others are trying the "timeless" content you're describing – I'd say Vox's "cards" come close (but are horribly boring tbh) Problem is – besides politics not always being easy to capture numerically – that the economics of such a model probably wouldn't work. It'd probably increase costs by factor of at least 5, and I strongly doubt that the market could support it. It's a tragedy-of-the-commons situation. I currently don't pay for any subscriptions, even though I've avoided the cynicism and the conspiracy theories frequently invoked against journalists. I think they're excellent – so much so in fact that can't imagine getting tied to any single publication. But, if nobody buys them anymore, we'll get to see what it's like without newspapers. I fear many people don't realize how much of what's going on originates with a handful of organizations. Unfortunately, just as power isn't created in the plug, no news are created on twitter (well, nowadays some are, but you get my point).
- yourapostasy 10y ago
  If the publishing market is destined to stay bifurcated, then it is a sad commentary on the descent of the Net down the same well-trodden path that television took to mediocrity and unfulfilled promise. There is a market for such data- and analytically-heavy publishing at the very high end. Actionable-oriented industry-specific analysis selling for $10K USD per year and magnitudes higher are purchased in very small quantities by trading firms, for example. Back in the BBS days, I was hopeful that the then-nascent Net would make it easier and less expensive to share, collate and test ideas and data on a larger scale, and evolve publishing to a more live- and continuously-curated ideas marketplace, so to speak. But I suspect you might be correct, and the ad-driven, entertainment-oriented content will crowd out what I had hoped for in a re-proving of Gresham's law for mass consumption content.

matt4077 10y ago

Well they're doing quite a lot in data-journalism. The Upshot (NYT) and 538 have git organizations. Others are trying the "timeless" content you're describing – I'd say Vox's "cards" come close (but are horribly boring tbh) Problem is – besides politics not always being easy to capture numerically – that the economics of such a model probably wouldn't work. It'd probably increase costs by factor of at least 5, and I strongly doubt that the market could support it. It's a tragedy-of-the-commons situation. I currently don't pay for any subscriptions, even though I've avoided the cynicism and the conspiracy theories frequently invoked against journalists. I think they're excellent – so much so in fact that can't imagine getting tied to any single publication. But, if nobody buys them anymore, we'll get to see what it's like without newspapers. I fear many people don't realize how much of what's going on originates with a handful of organizations. Unfortunately, just as power isn't created in the plug, no news are created on twitter (well, nowadays some are, but you get my point).

yourapostasy 10y ago
If the publishing market is destined to stay bifurcated, then it is a sad commentary on the descent of the Net down the same well-trodden path that television took to mediocrity and unfulfilled promise. There is a market for such data- and analytically-heavy publishing at the very high end. Actionable-oriented industry-specific analysis selling for $10K USD per year and magnitudes higher are purchased in very small quantities by trading firms, for example. Back in the BBS days, I was hopeful that the then-nascent Net would make it easier and less expensive to share, collate and test ideas and data on a larger scale, and evolve publishing to a more live- and continuously-curated ideas marketplace, so to speak. But I suspect you might be correct, and the ad-driven, entertainment-oriented content will crowd out what I had hoped for in a re-proving of Gresham's law for mass consumption content.